[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] independent semantic software evaluation frameworks?

To: "Pieter De Leenheer" <pdeleenh@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: fchum@xxxxxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, semantic-web@xxxxxxx
From: "AzamatAbdoullaev" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:57:56 +0300
Message-id: <4471EBA19071493ABDAB87A89C972B4B@personalpc>
They are all good points, Pieter.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pieter De Leenheer" <pdeleenh@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Abdoul" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <semantic-web@xxxxxxx>; "[ontolog-forum] " 
<ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <fchum@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: independent semantic software evaluation frameworks?    (01)

> In any case, we must not end up there...._again_.
> Ontologies are not datamodels.
AA: Correct. They are rather semantic frames for data, information and 
domain knowledge.    (02)

Data models are sharable between
> applications because they define an agreement on the meaning of the  data 
> being exchanged. Similarly, ontologies should be sharable by  stakeholders 
> in a community (each having their own data models and  applications) by 
> defining an agreement on the meaning of the various  data models.
> This requires a balance between (upper) ontologies and lower  ontologies: 
> Upper ontologies refer to context-independent and language  neutral 
> concepts. Such inter-organisational agreements exist already  in certain 
> sectors. Lower ontologies specialise these upper ontologies  for pragmatic 
> purposes, such as the alignment between sectors in a  certain context. The 
> latter are more dependent on organisational  vocabularies.
AA: Mostly correct. Upper ontologies are also designed to make a general 
context, knowledge background, determining all basic meanings and 
relationships involved .
> This approach of course contradicts the the network (Web) economy,that  is 
> characterised by the heterogeneity, distributedness, and autonomy  of 
> stakeholders. This may call for a methodology, i.e. a standard  procedure 
> to follow when reusing standards, etc.
AA: Yes. This calls for a set of common ontology and semantic standards.
> In any case the problem is rather social/cultural/organisational than 
> merely technical.
AA: Metafield of science, technology, and philosophy, a sort of 
trans-disciplinary problem.    (03)

> On 09 Aug 2009, at 23:55, Abdoul wrote:
>> PwC: Do you sense some danger that we could have a lot of enthusiasm 
>> here and end up with a lot of non-compatible ontologies? Are we  going to 
>> enter a period where there will need to be some sort of  master data 
>> model, a master ontology model effort?
> Dr. Pieter De Leenheer
> Semantics Technology & Applications Research Laboratory
> Vrije Universiteit Brussel
> T +32 2 629 37 50 | M +32 497 336 553 | F +32 2 629 38 19
> Check out my blog: http://www.pieterdeleenheer.be
>     (04)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (05)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>